It's one that I clearly remember EVERYONE (that I knew) liking at release. Years later, it's seemingly remembered as an underdog that most people didn't like. For that reason, everyone seems to like it much more than it really deserves.

Hehe, nah. I really like it myself - and I remember having a great time with it, especially in multiplayer.

But it's not really all that good, in my opinion. Just a cute little thing with a different spin on a familiar genre.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
But it's not really all that good, in my opinion. Just a cute little thing with a different spin on a familiar genre.

I would call it exactly 'good'. Not great, but certainly not bad. As I said in my review, I see it as "small in scope, but very successful in accomplishing what they try to do". Definitely not 'epic', more like Kult: Heretic Kingdoms.

Originally Posted by txa1265
I would call it exactly 'good'. Not great, but certainly not bad. As I said in my review, I see it as "small in scope, but very successful in accomplishing what they try to do". Definitely not 'epic', more like Kult: Heretic Kingdoms.

Sounds about right to me.

But if you look around the 'net these days, after the recent re-release, it's like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Not that I really mind, as I think it's a nice game.

It's just a strange phenomenon that I've seen quite a few times, with quite a few "underdog" games that - to me - were never really that "underdog" to begin with.

It's as if a game is always better if the perception is that it's not appreciated enough.

A good example is Deus Ex: Invisible War. Now, that CLEARLY was unappreciated - but it seems to me the "general perception" based on "forum consensus" changes around over and over. It goes from "absolute shit" to "not Deus Ex but pretty good" to "True to Deus Ex in many ways and really quite good" - and then back again

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
A good example is Deus Ex: Invisible War. Now, that CLEARLY was unappreciated - but it seems to me the "general perception" based on "forum consensus" changes around over and over. It goes from "absolute shit" to "not Deus Ex but pretty good" to "True to Deus Ex in many ways and really quite good" - and then back again

You know?

It could just be my imagination, though, I admit

I don't think it's your imagination, I seem to notice that as well. The reality is that Invisible War sucked hard. However, as time goes on, I see more and more people being apologetic towards it for reasons I'll never understand.

NOX is easy to get into , story is fun , it has some very epic moments ( like the fly in the tomb ) everyone still remembers and it doesn't take itself very seriously .
It was also the first "epic" game that had a pink CD#1
I have not played the warrior yet and i may have a run with him soon but the two other classes are very unbalanced .

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't think it's your imagination, I seem to notice that as well. The reality is that Invisible War sucked hard. However, as time goes on, I see more and more people being apologetic towards it for reasons I'll never understand.

Exactly, and I agree

That said, I can appreciate that opinions differ - and if some people think it's a good game, then that's fine.

Nothing atm, I keep trying everything new that releases but none of it holds my attention longer than a hr or two, and then when it comes to loading the game back up on another day, I can't get myself to click on the icon. After a week or two, I usually just uninstall them and look for something else.

I was very excited about the new Deus Ex, Dead Island and War 40k: Space Marine, but as I said above, I can't get myself to load them up again. I am thinking about playing Avadon soon though…

Originally Posted by JDR13
The reality is that Invisible War sucked hard. However, as time goes on, I see more and more people being apologetic towards it for reasons I'll never understand.

My guess is that a lot of those people who think the game sucked hard just donīt give a shit discussing or commenting on the game anymore. Besides general disinterest, also because once a sorta general consensus is established, those who more-or-less agree with it simply feel they have nothing new to add.
And people whose opinion notably differs from general consensus (or what they perceive as one) tend to feel stronger and longer about the subject matter I think.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
I think I wasted a lot of time building up enough vespene and minerals to add 3 more guardians to the initial 2 to take out the southern base. Plus it was sort of a slow process. If I just rush the base with most of all my starting troops I should save a bunch of time, and get a higher vesepne rate earlier, which should allow more upgrades and zerglings earlier. A little riskier but I think necessary, without resorting to other tricks.

Well that didn't work. On my third attempt I was able to take out the Protoss base with six minutes to spare, and gained access to the bonus mission. Yay!

Hint: ignore (but defend against) the terran bases, and attack the Protoss base with fully upgraded hydralisks to create a "hydralisk hammer". I won with 24 hydralisks, 36 zerglings, 5 guardians, 3 overlords, and 1 ultralisk. Also created a hive and nydus canal on the west end of the Protoss base area, out of view, and ignored, to save travel time.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't think it's your imagination, I seem to notice that as well. The reality is that Invisible War sucked hard. However, as time goes on, I see more and more people being apologetic towards it for reasons I'll never understand.

I will only ever go as far as 'it isn't so bad that it deserved the level of hate I heaped upon it for being perhaps the most disappointing sequel ever'.

Originally Posted by JDR13
… The reality is that Invisible War sucked hard. However, as time goes on, I see more and more people being apologetic towards it for reasons I'll never understand.

Maybe because some people actually thought it was a good game? Is it being an apologist to simply have a different opinion from the established consensus? I got a lot more enjoyment out of IW than Bioshock, that's for sure. To me, I think the failings of IW are grossly exaggerated as a result of people being stuck on the fact that it wasn't as good as the original, and of course the (understandable ) PC bias that comes from a former exclusive going multi-platform. But from my perspective, IW is far from a terrible game when judged by its own merits - something that is almost impossible to most people because of the "Deus Ex" in the title and the expectations that go along with it.

I agree with Nerevarine. I am a bit more radical in my opinion, though, and I feel there were very important improvements made in Invisible War which made certain aspects of the game a lot more enjoyable. Invisible War's biomod system is in my opinion the best of the series, and its story is also better than Human Revolution's.

To not derail the thread further, I am currently playing Boiling Point: Road to Hell. I am about 5-7 hours into it and while I am impressed by the ideas and ambitions behind it, the game itself is disappointing so far.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
Maybe because some people actually thought it was a good game? Is it being an apologist to simply have a different opinion from the established consensus?

I think the point was more having the thoughts on the game go from one end of the spectrum to the other - from the same person. You like it? Great!

Originally Posted by Tilean
To not derail the thread further, I am currently playing Boiling Point: Road to Hell. I am about 5-7 hours into it and while I am impressed by the ideas and ambitions behind it, the game itself is disappointing so far.

I similarly love/hate that game … played a bit of it recently and was reminded of that.

I picked up Bard's Tale (2004) on Steam and played a bit of that last night after finishing up NOX. Wow … an already mediocre game that has not aged well at all …

While we are on the topic of Deus Ex, I find that game to be quite overrated. Good, yes, but it is often given credit for things that it did not even do. Take the whole multiple path/multiple ending thing that people sometimes bring up. Yes, the game did have multiple endings, but what dictated what ending you got was one decisions on the very last level. As far as I can tell, you could get all different endings no matter what you actually did during the game (well one ending was hard to get to unless you had invested points in either regeneration or hazard suit use)